The Forge Archives

There have been a couple of refences to the whole, "GM is god" mindset. What are the general views on this type of mentality? Is is accepted and expected? Do you try and avoid such mindset and gaming groups that bye into it? How do you deal with it one way or another. Is it as prevalent as it appears?

The ideal is to avoid pure polling type threads here. Thus I won't tell you anything about my own opinions on the matter :D If you want to continue the thread, find an angle for discussion that results in more than comparing experiences.

The obvious answer to the mentality is to note that it's appropriateness depends on the game and the group. If you play a game where you need a god GM, then you by golly should have one. So, asketh the furry forest creature, which are these games?

Above all others is probably Paranoia, which explicitly assumes a god GM. Then there's a bunch of '80s games (everything from Chaosium, say) that imply both adherence to rules and the GM deciding everything without really taking a stance. Lastly there's the "storytelling" type games of the '90s that are explicitly schitzhophrenic, giving rules and telling you not to use them, talking about mutual storytelling and how the GM is anyways always right, and so on. WW games are a good example, as well as Tri-stat games. I find the latter extremely funny, as they tend to include "freeform is the highest form", "always obey the GM" and "change any rule you wish" in the same book with tens and hundreds of pages of dense rules material. Talk about blindness to meaning.

In this morass it's no wonder that the simplest possible power structure, where the GM decides what goes, tends to be a common one when the game doesn't explicitly give power to others. In some circles it's become the mark of the good roleplayer: in Finland it's the de facto boundary between "real roleplayers" and twerps, whether they're willing to cede all power to the auteur figure. It's considered whining to posit any other source of authority.

Then again, nowadays there are games that again explicitly discuss the issue and limit GM power. Being that you're in Forge, you probably know all about them.

Lots of good discussion on this in the Game Master Is System thread a while back.

Apart from that reference, I do feel I should add that Paranoia, which Eero lists as one of the most explicitly "God-GM" games, is absolutely made to be GMed reactively, letting the players drive the story through their always-humorous attempts to escape their enjoyably doomed fate.

So power and authority do not equate with either authorship or control.

Quote from: DarksmithThere have been a couple of refences to the whole, "GM is god" mindset. What are the general views on this type of mentality? Is is accepted and expected? Do you try and avoid such mindset and gaming groups that bye into it? How do you deal with it one way or another. Is it as prevalent as it appears?

I'm not sure what it means, when you get down to it. Does it mean: don't argue with the GM? Does it mean the GM can have anything happen at any time for any reason and you don't have a complaint? Does it mean the GM runs the story like it's on rails and you ought not deviate?

I mean, in one sense, saying "The GM of a traditional game is god-like in terms of 'creating the world' and in terms of 'having things happen like the weather, gravity, etc.'" then I agree with it.

If it means "The GM is the ultimate word on anything within the game" then I think it's kind of an annoying way to put it (do we say "The umpire is God" in reference to a baseball game?)

If it means the GM has free reign over physics and cause and effect and it'll suit his whim then I suspect it's a social contract I wouldn't much appreciate.

-Marco

I'm with Marco. 100%.

Can someone please provide a specific, definite, descriptive explanation of the phenomenon we're supposed to be discussing?

Best,
Ron

As one of the more recent mentioners of said tendency, the 'GM is God' mentality usually consists of some combination of the following:

1. The Rules Say what the GM says they do.
2. The GM has the right to override anything you say or do, under all circumstances.
3. If it doesn't happen with the GM as a witness, it didn't happen.
4. Do not question the GM on why something happened the way it did.  The GM has everything under control.
5. The GM has absolute mediatorial control over all discussion, in and out of character, including the right to say 'SHUT UP'.
6. Any rights and priveliges not mentioned above are to be relegated/denied as the GM sees fit.
7. Players posess only one right, to leave the game. And often, if they do so, they are no longer welcome to game with the group in any future games, lest the GM punish those who did stay for fraternizing with an insubordinate player.

I've seen this mindset more than a few times in my gaming career, and frankly, it drives me nuts. I simply cannot play in a game that acts under these suppositions.  I can understand how it might work for some groups, and how for some groups it might be necessary.  Not for me.

I've acted as final arbiter of the rules as a GM, against the arguments of disgruntled players. It was usually in cases where they argued for the last ounce of advantage, like a whining defense lawyer. (You have to admire how Gamist players press to the edge.) Disputes shouldn't be settled with shouting matches, most would agree; so there is value in this function.

I think GM's as rules arbiters spoil their impression when they make inconsistent rulings or appear to be motivated by petty moods, like spite or arrogance.

Likewise, it's when a GM overrides something without explanation or in a dismissive manner that players become disenfranchised.

Mortaneous' SC clause about a GM witness duty reveals the classic RPG bottleneck of GM attention. The following is an example of a phenomenon I've seen time and time again: the players are marching along; other players are in different locations, performing maintenance functions; the progressive sub-party is attacked; concentrated SIS impact is lavished on the embattled sub-party; other location subs get ants in their pants, trying to get to the site or do something to affect the outcome of the battle; they get drowned out by input from the combat sub or told "you're not there"; combat ends and input is received for follow up functions (healing, collecting spoils, etc); non-combat subs become disgusted and disengage; calls for input go out unheeded; after the disenfranchised leave their darkness, an argument ensues over whether they provided input and how what counts is what the GM heard.

I've got an example for #4: my GM had an NPC bring my nemesis' head in a basket to my apartment door. Talk about pissed off. How could I exact my revenge on a dead man?

Every GM sets the tone as far as how much side-talk he will tolerate. I have sat for some GM's that told everyone to shutup, but we were being brats, and he was seriously stressing. I more tried not to laugh than got upset. And I've interrupted everyone's side conversations and told them it was a drag to compete. And you kind of sympathize with them being bored. And you also kind of get pissed off at their inability to invest in the on-screen players' experience.

I've never seen a GM revoke player priveleges. I have, as a player, stabbed another's character to punish him for checking our party's hit point levels and then fireballing the demon (or whatever), frying us as well. The mage was vastly more powerful than the fighter-thief I was playing, but his player's hands were shaking and the whole group grew quite. "I think I've made my point," I said. "It's your funeral," he said. And we let it go. Talk about your spontaneous Nar moment.

Players resign out of frustration. They're frustrated because they don't have any impact or don't like the direction of Exploration. The GM fails to support the players because they do not intersect his preparation. He is afraid to stamp left-field input because it may compete with his ability to provide play material. If he fails in this, he will appear foolish and ineffective.

I think the way through is to ask for what you want out of what he (the GM) can deliver.

I've always felt that the GM is not a god of the game by any rights. If there was anyone that should be considered the 'god' it should be the design team of the game. They created the rules and world in which the characters must interact. The GM must intereact within this world and use it's 'laws' to tell his story.

At least that is how I see it.

The GM can fudge rolls or change things within the game, but the game is still the framework that he is operating in. I've only seen a GM totally disregard the framework of the system we were playing once and it did not go well.

I guess my real question is: Should the GM be bound by the rules of the system that he is running just like the players or should he be above them? Is there a happy medium?

Quote from: DarksmithIs there a happy medium?

I'm afraid that depends on more factors than I can identify, i.e. I think there is no universally correct answer.

Sometimes, it's best to handle things by committee. (Really! =)
And sometimes, it's best to designate a dictator for a specific time or (sub)task.

Depends on what you value in a game, really.

In any case, I think that "GM is god" (as defined by Moraneous) is a wide-spread and damaging fallacy.

Regards,

Hal

For my crew this "GM is God" started from our first games.

The first time a new player starts building a character I explain a few things.  Like this is a drama but instead of being on stage you're sitting in front of other players.  Also you don't have any lines.  Only guild lines as to how you're character should act.

But when it came down to explaining that I as the GM tell the story they seem to get a bit confused.  I tell them that I'm like a narrator setting up the scene.  But that didn't help to much.  "But why do you get to deiced if it's raining or not?"  Well I say because I'm the creator of the story.  I set the mood and control all the other people in the game that aren't PC (aka NPC).  Think of it as a god in that I control your environment and I can even control your actions.  "Ahhh ok I understand now".  

An added rule that we use is that the GM is the ref in that he/she has final say in all discussions.   What makes a good GM is their ability to listen to the needs or suggestions of the players and then find a good compromise that doesn't harm the story.  But also to remind players why we are all sitting around a table.  To play a game not create a rule system.

Some people seem to disagree in letting the GM have the final say.  Saying it's unfair.  Well to that I say the GM has to have the final say.  There needs to be some type of control.  You can't let the players keep changing the rules as they see fit.  You can't let them take to much control over the environment.  The less debate in a game session the smother it runs.

If a player doesn't want to let the GM take full control of their environment then what does that say about the player?

If the GM doesn't listen to the players needs then that GM will find him or herself without players.

But when it comes down to a yelling match about what is right.  The GM has the final say.  It's his or her game session.  Therefore it's the GM's rules that we use.  GM is God.

--
OT: How's that for my first post. smiles.  This board has been a very valuable resource for my gaming needs.

It seems to me in most games, the GM tends to be "first among equals", like the king among the barons.  There are very few games (Scarlet Wake and Universalis come to mind) where there isn't a privileged participant.  

Even then, I suspect, there's probably one guy who "knows the rules really well" and acts as informal leader.  

The degree of hierarchy in the game, the elevation of the GM ("umpire" vs. "absolute god") has more to do with OOC intrapersonal factors than to rules.

Hi Jeremy and welcome to the Forge!

I think your post is interesting, as it touches upon two different meanings of the expression "GM is god":

Quote from: JeremyBut when it came down to explaining that I as the GM tell the story they seem to get a bit confused.  I tell them that I'm like a narrator setting up the scene.  But that didn't help to much.  "But why do you get to deiced if it's raining or not?"  Well I say because I'm the creator of the story.  I set the mood and control all the other people in the game that aren't PC (aka NPC).  Think of it as a god[.]

[...]

An added rule that we use is that the GM is the ref in that he/she has final say in all discussions.

You are differentiating between two meanings here:

(1) "GM is god" refers to an evocative image which can be useful in explaining some traditional GM functions to newcomers.

(2) "GM is god" refers to the idea that the GM is the final arbiter.

QuoteSome people seem to disagree in letting the GM have the final say. Saying it's unfair. Well to that I say the GM has to have the final say. There needs to be some type of control. You can't let the players keep changing the rules as they see fit. You can't let them take to much control over the environment.

You describe a valid and sensible way to avoid the problems you mention (e.g. confusion about the rules).

However, there are other, equally sensible ways to address these issues without adhering to "GM is god" (in the second sense).

I suggest you take a look at the games _Universalis_ (which is GM-less and has players create rules on the fly) and _InSpectres_ (which gives a great deal of control to the players), both of which have been discussed extensively at the Forge.

I personally find them fascinating and think that they show how things can be done very differently.

(Perhaps someone with more search-fu will provide links to useful threads...?)

Regards,

Hal

[edited once to correct minor mistakes]

In what general set of theory of religion are we approaching the dimension of god from?

If he was wise and patient, being one with the river, or some other nonsense like that, then obviously there is nothing to fear.

However, if they were a power flaunting wrathful type that could be bad.

In a small tangent, it seems to me that most "the GM is god and has no responsiblity to go with his great power" ideals come from a similar "it's us versus the DM" mentalities that early gamers have.

Most people with such mentalities (us vs. GM) are, shall I put it lightly and say, BAD roleplayers.  They usually do not understand the non-GM elements of the game that make the universe meaningful (such as style, or player participation, or that it "role"-playing and not "roll"-playing).

I would also say that if the GM were really god, computer-based RPGs wouldn't function as well as they do.

In summation, I would say anyone who believes the GM is god should think that Tom Hanks thinks Steven Spielberg is god, the GM is there to compel and challenge you, not send you to heaven or hell, contrive a list of commandments, or judge you based on their own set of moralities.

Quote from: HalzebierI suggest you take a look at the games _Universalis_ (which is GM-less and has players create rules on the fly) and _InSpectres_ (which gives a great deal of control to the players), both of which have been discussed extensively at the Forge.

I personally find them fascinating and think that they show how things can be done very differently.

Very interesting.  I'll have to look into more details.  My only concern would be players abusing their creative control.  I assume the games have rules that dictate how much control the players are giving.  I can see a game becoming chaotic and very silly quite fast without some type of check.

But would it not then go from "GM is God" to "Book is God". Smile.  "You can't do that.  The book says so!".  Something has to have final say.

When I say God I mean an entity that has creative control over all and can change the outcome of any event.  Maybe not in the religious sense.  I use the word to convey a meaning/feeling not a religious message.

-Jeremy
OT: I'm personally not religious.

Quote from: eralstonThey usually do not understand the non-GM elements of the game that make the universe meaningful (such as style, or player participation, or that it "role"-playing and not "roll"-playing).

Well said.

Quote from: eralstonI would also say that if the GM were really god, computer-based RPGs wouldn't function as well as they do.

In summation, I would say anyone who believes the GM is god should think that Tom Hanks thinks Steven Spielberg is god, the GM is there to compel and challenge you, not send you to heaven or hell, contrive a list of commandments, or judge you based on their own set of moralities.

I would have to agree and disagree. "Steven Spielberg is god" would be true in that he's the director.  I want the scene to look like this.   I want this outcome to happen.  Tom Hanks is just the actor paid to act the role that the director has outlined.  Now as with many many directors Tom Hanks has some lea way in that he can say "what if we do it like this?"  But in the end Spielberg says yes or no.

I guess we that use "GM is God" should be using "GM is the Boss" as the idea of God and what is God doesn't translate very well between people and cultures.

Doh. I'm breaking one of my rules of "don't talk religion."  I'll stop now.

-Jeremy